I'm going to serve a potentially large amount of images , so have decided to use directory hashing to store them, along with either sequential numbering or a 32char hex identifier -- so abcdefg.jpg is in the directory gf/ed/abcdefg.jpg
here's where mp2 comes in -- instead of writing out the hashed directory path, i was thinking about just writing the image name and hosting it off a location directive that would hash file requests transparently
essentially this would be the tradeoff: apache a : dynamic server apache b : static server
scenario 1
apache a (mp2) : prints hashed image location
extra , though tiny, function call to create location
potentially larger bandwidth (though chained compression can mitigate this)
apache b (vanilla) : serves hashed image location as-is
scenario 2
apache a (mp2) : prints image location
no call to hash image
slightly obfuscates backend data storage
apache b:
either:
(mod_rewrite) rewrites requests on the fly
(mp2) rewrites requests on the flydoes anyone think this is worthwhile to benchmark -- or would the extra load on the static server be an obviously drastic increase to seasoned users?
